23 comments:

The only “racial” aspect I see to this is that (1) a middle class white community would have raised holy hell at this kind of treatment, and (2, and more importantly) it’s elected officials would have responded!

It is interesting how local governments can so often pulverize civil and commercial rights, and few complain.

I will give a ubiquitous example: Sidewalk, or push-cart vending. If you visit SE Asia, you are aware of the proliferation of sidewalk and push-cart vendors, able to provide goods and food at very reasonable rates, and to own their own businesses. Great!

Push-cart vending is outlawed in every city in the U.S. and I would be happy to hear about exceptions. Yes, a couple kiosks in front of the NY Met selling pretzels.

Think about it! To start a restaurant in L.A. (although there are food trucks, and they are embattled) a guy has to rent a space, comply with endless regs, pay utilities etc. They say $250k to start an budget eatery, and that's if you do everything just right. Free enterprise, if you are rich first.

In contrast, a push-cart can be had for hundreds of dollars, and a large cauldron of soup for a couple hundred more, and you are in business. If your soup is good (or burritoes etc.) then you are in business. And only if your food is good.

Or, load up your cart with shoes you bought for $1 at a close-out warehouse, and sell for $2.

So who is against push-carts? Landlords who rent ground-floor space, and their tenants.

And..maybe that is why push-carts have never become a cause celebre in the right-wing. Business people do not want push-carts. Only consumers.

Ideology stops where the dollar starts.

Besides...who wants some guys hawking wares on the sidewalk in front of your home? Free enterprise..until it is uncomfortable. Then regulations!

I have never seen a column by a "right winger" calling for push carts. BTW, on business issues, I am mostly in the right wing.

But the vendor certainly needs a license from the municipality, with variable charges according to location,renewable annually and prominently displayed. And the Health Department has to inspect the premises (sic) periodically. And then the environmental department has to certify that he has the proper disposal containers (labeled according to glass, plastic, paper, recyclables, whatever). All push carts are restricted to designated "push cart zones." While push carts might be available for rental, the rental fees will be according to a scale established by the authorities.

This was mainly about race. Local bigots ran local government. Thankfully big government (in the form of the fed) are stepping in to fix it. Without the larger role of the federal government the local over-armed police would kept on as usual. The only thing that protects people from oppression is good government.

Three points:1. This is fairly normal for a poorer St. Louis municipality. The richer ones only loot outsiders.2. The legal profession is complicit in the looting because of the Missouri tradition that lawyers can easily “fix” tickets with no points or information flowing to insurers: just pay the fine and a fee to the lawyer and you’re off. Unless you’re poor and can’t pay, that is.3. Massive over criminalization and over enforcement have their roots and legitimacy in “broken windows” policing. Hyper aggressive and picayune “broken windows” policing was the European establishment’s response to the breakdown of the old cultural consensus in our cities due to waves of both domestic and international migration from very different cultures. Its top down, coercive nature is an admission by elites that we have not sustained a common culture where everyone abides by common norms. It is an admission of cultural defeat by European America. As is the war on drugs which compliments and intensifies it’s effects.

Some perspective is in order. I agree that some of the cases detailed in the article were way out of bounds, but some were briefly mentioned as an example of the overarching racial problem without sufficient detail to know for sure. The author commented about fines for loud music in cars. Coincidentally, As I read this article in the comfort of my kitchen, I heard a neighborhood kid (a white male) drive by to the beat of his deep base music system. Was I annoyed? Yes! Will the police stop him if they hear it? (In my town, yes). Will he be given just a warning? No, because money talks, and "warnings" are meaningless. Will I be upset if "...another $4,905 for loud music coming out of their cars." shows up in my town's annual tally of traffic offenses? Not one bit! And race has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous is right. There's a strong case to be made that laws are underenforced, not overenforced. I wouldn't trust the Justice Dept. report too far, since we know Ferguson had to be criticized for political reasons.

An interesting question for libertarians and non-libertarians alike is: what should be the mix of finance from fines and from taxation? Would it really be better for Ferguson to write fewer tickets and raise taxes? As far as government kleptocracy goes, they're the same---- either way, the government gets the money. Fines do create more corruption, since they're based on less easily verifiable conditions---- how fast a car was going, rather than the market value of a plot of land. But they also create better incentives, since they penalize bad behavior whereas ordinary taxes penalize good behavior (e.g. making your house more valuable).

"An interesting question for libertarians and non-libertarians alike is: what should be the mix of finance from fines and from taxation?"

Absent other means of finance, there is no real difference. Add in debt, and the equation changes. If we reduce taxes to zero and limit a government's financing means entirely to a system of fines and debt, do fines that successfully eliminate bad behavior also successfully shrink the size of government?

I believe that is the libertarian position, and I think it is misguided from an economic perspective.

Those that have the power to create and enforce rules, have the power to change the rules to maintain power. From an economic perspective, you are better off with fixed taxation, rather than relying on a moving goal post of "bad behaviors" to be fined out of existence.

The mix should be a residual identified after the fact - not a policy choice. Fines should be levied to discourage unwanted behavior - not to generate revenue. General taxation should be used to provide for the public good with debt used mainly to smooth spending when tax revenues drop.

Don't be silly, Frank. The fines are monetary. You should specify in advance how the funds raised from fines will be spent. They should never go into the general fund. Rather spend them on public goods to counteract the damage done. Fines levied for speeding should be used to improve roads. Fines for improper disposal of hazardous waste should be earmarked for environmental cleanup.

Eric raised the question of the proper mix of fines and taxes for the purpose of financing government spending. I merely point out that fines should never be designed to contribute to the budget. The budget should be financed by taxes alone. The fines should be designed to penalize negative externalities. The temptation you talk about results from fines entering the general fund of the agency empowered to collect the fines.

Sort of like Social Security taxes should only be used to pay social security benefits? Funny how that doesn't happen.

The question is, how do you realistically match spending objectives with financing sources? You mentioned speeding ticket fines used to improve roads. If fines from speeding fall, road maintenance should be neglected? If fines from speeding increase, road maintenance should be increased (even if unwarranted)?

"Don't be silly, Frank. The fines are monetary."

If the objective of any punishment is only to deter certain behavior, then it is a fair question to ask whether a monetary fine achieves that objective without having other consequences (intended or not).

Thanks to a few abusers I am now moderating comments. I welcome thoughtful disagreement. I will block comments with insulting or abusive language. I'm also blocking totally inane comments. Try to make some sense. I am much more likely to allow critical comments if you have the honesty and courage to use your real name.

About Me and This Blog

This is a blog of news, views, and commentary, from a humorous free-market point of view. After one too many rants at the dinner table, my kids called me "the grumpy economist," and hence this blog and its title.
In real life I'm a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford. I was formerly a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. I'm also an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute. I'm not really grumpy by the way!